EH: Having read your articles about your revolutionary cancer therapy,
I cannot help but wonder how difficult it has been for you to continue
working as an oncologist in the world of mainstream medicine. What has
been the response of the medical authorities to your work?

TS: Suppression. Plots. Defamatory TV programs. When a scientist has
an effective and revolutionary idea, the medical institution attempts
to suppress his work because he threatens the interests of the ruling
class. No matter how effective the therapy in question is, their aim
will be to destroy him.

Those in power ensure that the following things are put into action:

1) dismissal from the medical associations,
2) instigation of newspaper and TV campaigns portraying him as a charlatan,
3) mounting attacks against him from the judicial system,
4) constant police harassment at home.

EH: What are the things preventing our current medical system from embracing
your theories about cancer being caused by a fungus (Candida) and your
treatment of tumours using bicarbonate of soda?

TS: One: there is a selfishness and lack of spirituality within the
medical ruling class. It prevents them from looking beyond their acquired
ignorance. Two: the fundamental theory behind cancer is based on the
hypothesis that it is caused by a genetic disorder resulting in an over-reproduction
of the cancerous cells. This theory is simply wrong and has never been
demonstrated.

EH: Do you believe these problems can be overcome, and if so, how?

TS: Yes, I do. It will be achieved through grassroots activism, which
will establish freedom in medical research. If large numbers of people
in a country gather and work together, it is possible to demand that
the authorities allow for freedom in medical research. This can be done
through demonstrations and informing people via the media.

EH: How many cases of cancer have you been able to cure? Surely your
results must have at least attracted the attention of your colleagues
in the medical world?

TS: I have treated hundreds of patients. Most of them had extremely
advanced cancer, especially after having been subjected to conventional
therapies. Many of them made a complete recovery and are still alive
and well years after the treatment.

In the cases of cancers caught early (lumps smaller than 3cm, with minimal
incidence of metastasis) 90% of patients have made a recovery.

Many doctors agree with my methods and have used the sodium bicarbonate
treatment.

EH: Is there no way that you could use this evidence to put pressure
on the establishment to take your work more seriously?

TS: No, because it is necessary to demonstrate one’s results with
many hundreds of fully documented cases. This is not possible unless
you work in a cancer clinic.

EH: Many women suffering from Candida are plagued by persistent long-term
gynaecological problems, from thrush to reproductive cancers. What would
be your advice to them?

TS: To uproot persistent gynaecological fungal infections one should
do a douche every day with two litres of pure water (that has been boiled
and left to cool) containing two dissolved tablespoons of bicarbonate
of soda. This should be kept up for two months, stopping only during
one’s period. Candida is very persistent and it takes a long time
to kill an infection.

EH: Although your views on cancer and fungus are revolutionary within
the context of mainstream medicine, within alternative medicine your
views of what Candida is and how it functions in the body appear to differ
from many alternative practitioners who view Candida as a systemic problem
affecting the whole body and originating in the intestines. From what
I gather you do not see the Candida problem as residing in the gut. If
you believe that the Candida yeast is not the cause of the various intestinal
problems usually associated with Candidiasis, what in your opinion is
the cause?

TS: The main cause is environmental. Secondly, there is a resulting
lack of energy caused by alterations in the blood circulation. Thirdly,
diet. The problem is, why does a person have intolerances to sugar, yeast,
eggs, milk etc? Before these developed, damage had been caused. The gut’s
epithelium is impaired and that causes the intolerances. It is important
to cure this, and then it is possible to see if the related problems
continue.

It is not good to avoid a particular food for ever, because it doesn’t
deal with the root cause of the illness, which is usually caused by problems
within the environment, from impaired energy levels and poor diet.

For example, a person who has heart disease may suffer from chronic
dilatation of the gut (in this way the heart works less), and an intolerance
is the result . . . Another example is a person who suffers from cooling
syndrome. This provokes congestion and consequently intolerances. And
so on.

Therefore it is necessary to cure the illness at its root cause, not
just the symptoms by avoiding this or that food.

EH: Finally, what is your opinion of the situation that many alternative
health practitioners find themselves in with regard to the anti alternative
medicine campaigns being waged against them by the medical authorities,
the medical press and national media, for example Quackbusters? What
do you feel is needed to protect alternative therapists such as yourself,
and the patients who come to you for help?

TS: My opinion is that the alternative practitioners are scared and
don’t have the means to fight the lies perpetrated by mainstream
medicine. The medical world needs to be liberated in order to allow patients
freedom of choice in healthcare. Most illnesses are the result of an
unhealthy lifestyle, and as such, drugs are useless and can only do damage.
Furthermore, archaic institutions such as the medical associations frequently
pressure doctors into prescribing only useless, toxic and harmful treatments.

CANCER AND FUNGUS

A Path of Personal Research

By Dr Tullio Simoncini

One of the questions that I am asked most frequently when the issue
of this new anti-cancer therapy comes up is how it all began, how the
idea first struck me that cancer could be a fungus, and the motives and
events that induced me to drift away from official oncology. It all began
when I was attending an introductory course in histology. When the professor
described tumours as some terrible and mysterious monster, I felt indignant – as
one does if told “Everyone is powerless before me” – that
was the implicit threat when it came to cancer – “your minds
are too small to understand me.”

That was when the war began, my personal war against cancer. I was aware
that I could win it only by focusing all my resources and mental energy
- conscious and unconscious - in the right direction. And I believed
this could only be found by using a critical approach to the official
line of thought, a line of thought which is built on many unknowns and
very few certainties.

The biggest task, therefore, consisted initially of acquiring the necessary
knowledge for this research, and at the same time putting anything that
I was studying under critical analysis. In other words I had to keep
in mind that everything I was learning might well be false.

So, as the years went by my convictions deepened – particularly
later, when working in hospital wards, where I realised that medicine
was not only unable to resolve the cancer problem, but also that of the
majority of diseases. Which is still, unfortunately, true today. This
is because, apart from success in various sectors in the treatment of
specific symptoms of these diseases, medicine is unable to offer any
conclusive benefit. Hypertension, diabetes, epilepsy, psoriasis, asthma,
arthritis, Crohn’s Disease, and many more are typical examples
of this.

Apart from my distrust with regard to the effectiveness of medicine,
over time my experience in the clinical field had begun to weigh upon
me so heavily that I was finding it difficult to deal with. These feelings
were aggravated each time I was faced with desperate cases. This led
to a crisis where I at first wanted to leave. However, it then turned
into a desire to stay on and ‘fight in the trenches’ in order
to think about and develop new solutions.

Little by little, working endless hours in the university’s paediatric
oncology emergency ward, where I was finishing my thesis, my mind began
to explore. Towards the end I was finding it painfully difficult to see
the patients, their relatives, my professors, colleagues, the nurses
- even people in general, such were my feelings of alienation in a system
that I believed to be totally bankrupt.

I was wondering, … ‘and my profession, the university career,
my social position, what will happen to them?’

After all, it would have been very difficult to survive on ideas alone,
especially in a medical world where job opportunities were diminishing
on a daily basis to the extent that there were very few possibilities
of employment worth considering.

On the other hand, I was not particularly attracted to the university
environment. In fact, I saw it as an enmeshed and unpleasant entity that
prevented the achievement of any scientific goal; distracting, as it
does, the best intellectual and personnel resources from science by channelling
them towards irrelevant and superficial arguments.

From that point on it was clear which direction I was to take. I left
the faculty of medicine and enrolled for a physics degree. I studied
for several years in order to develop a more scientific mind-set and
in order to explore the infinite aspects of research in detail.

At the same time, I started to investigate other medical approaches
including alternative medicine which, although officially ridiculed,
had many followers, especially amongst those patients who could not endure
excessively aggressive therapeutic methods. Experience after experience
led me to understand that the raison d’ètre of these alternative
methods was to fill the gap left by conventional medicine and its inability
to solve the patients’ problems. The patients seemed to get greater
benefit from those therapies that evaluated them and treated them as
a whole being and not simply with unsatisfactory treatments for their
symptoms.

It was when I was setting up a naturopathic practice that I had the
idea of cancer’s being caused by fungus. When I was treating a
patient who had psoriasis, using corrosive salts, I realised that the
salts worked because they were destroying something – and that
something was fungus.

From that realisation I deduced the solution I had been so long searching
for: if psoriasis, an incurable disease, is caused by a fungus, then
it is possible that cancer, another incurable disease, could be caused
by a fungus. That link was what started all the experiences, the experiments,
the verifications and the results, through relentless and “underground” work
that brought great professional satisfaction to me and that allowed me
to perfect a therapy that is very effective against tumorous masses,
that is, against fungal colonies.

Once the causal role of fungus in tumour proliferation was hypothesised,
the problem of how to attack it in deep internal tissue arose, since
in those areas it was not possible to use salts that were too strong.
It then occurred to me that with oral-pharyngeal candidiasis of breastfed
babies, sodium bicarbonate was a quick and powerful weapon capable of
eliminating the disease in three or four days. I thought that if I could
administer high concentrations orally or intravenously, I might be able
to obtain the same result. So I started my tests and my experiments,
which immediately provided me with tangible results.

Amongst these, one of the first patients I treated was an 11-year-old
child, a case which immediately indicated that I was on the right track.
The child arrived in a coma at the paediatric haematology ward around
11:30 in the morning, with a clinical history of leukaemia. Because of
the child’s disease he had been taken from a small town in Sicily
to Rome, through the universities of Palermo and Naples, where he underwent
several chemotherapy sessions. His desperate mother told me that she
had been unable to speak with the child for 15 days; that is, since the
child had been on his journey through the various hospitals. She said
she would have given the world to hear her son’s voice once again
before he died. As I was of the opinion that the child was comatose both
because of the proliferation of fungal colonies in the brain and because
of the toxicity of the therapies that had been performed on him, I concluded
that if I could destroy the colonies with sodium bicarbonate salts and
at the same time nourish and detoxify the brain with glucose administered
intravenously, I could hope for a regression of the symptoms.

And so it was. After a continuous intravenous infusion of bicarbonate
and glucose solutions, at around 7pm, when I returned to the university,
I found the child speaking with his mother, who was in tears.

Since then, I have continued in this field and I have been able to treat
and to cure several people, mostly during a period of three years when
I was a voluntary assistant at the Regina Elena Tumour Institute in Rome.
In 1990, although my time was almost totally occupied with work in a
centre for diabetes, owing to changes in my personal life I decided to
increase my research in the field of cancer, a disease that was always
foremost in my mind, although I had in recent years been forced to neglect
it.

Before resuming my combat against cancer, however, I felt the need to
better explore the rationale of medicine and therefore of oncology so
that I could acquire the intellectual, critical and self-critical attributes
necessary in order to understand where hidden errors may lie.

I enrolled for a philosophy degree, which I completed in 1996. That
was the year when, feeling more composed, I began making contacts within
the world of oncology again, attempting first of all to make my theories
and treatment methods known, especially within the more accredited institutions.

So, the Ministry of Health, the Italian and foreign oncology institutes,
and oncology associations were made aware of my research and my results
- but there was no acknowledgement at all. All I encountered were colleagues,
variously qualified, who tended to be condescending and who seemed only
capable of uttering the magic word: genetics.

I thought to myself ‘This will lead us nowhere’. In fact,
I found myself in a situation with no way out. I had so many great ideas
and some positive results, but no opportunity to check them with patients
affected by tumours, in an authoritative scientific context.

I decided to be patient and to continue getting results, treating patient
after patient and at the same time trying to become known by as many
people as possible, especially in the field of alternative medicine where
at least there was an openness and an opportunity to contact professionals
who already had a critical attitude towards official medical thought.
It was during that time that, for lack of any alternative, I started
my research on the Internet. And I soon found contacts, friends and consensus,
all of which allowed me to spread my theories, but – even more
importantly – they gave me the psychological thrust necessary to
continue my personal fight against the sea of sterility and self-evidence
that exists in mainstream medicine.

I took comfort from the knowledge that my idea, my little torch, would
not go out but could take root somewhere. I started to hope again that,
given the validity of the message, sooner or later it would find a way
to being shared and accepted by an ever-growing number of people. Slowly,
in that way, I was able to get my theory about cancer known and to share
it with the public at conferences, in interviews and at conventions.
All that widened my field of action and gave me the opportunity to accumulate
a remarkable amount of experience and of clinical results.

Friends pointed out to me, however, that my therapies with sodium bicarbonate
solution, although they were effective, needed to evolve in terms of
their methodology, as some types of cancer could either not be reached
in any way or at least reached insufficiently.

Sodium bicarbonate administered orally, via aerosol or intravenously
can achieve positive results only in some tumours, while others – such
as the serious ones of the brain or the bones - remain unaffected by
the treatment. These were the reasons I got in touch with several colleagues,
especially interventionist radiologists, and I was finally able to reach
those areas of the body that had previously been inaccessible. This was
achieved through positioning appropriate catheters either in cavities
for peritoneum and pleura, or in arteries to reach other organs.

SELECTIVE ARTERIOGRAPHY

By Tullio Simoncini

The basic concept of my therapy is the administration of a solution
with a high content of sodium bicarbonate directly onto tumours. These
are susceptible to regression only if one destroys the fungal colonies.

It was the ongoing search for ever more effective techniques to allow
me to get as close as possible to the inner tissues that led me to the
idea of selective arteriography (visualisation using instruments on specific
arteries) and positioning an arterial port-a-cath (devices joining the
catheter). These methods make it possible to place a small catheter directly
into the artery that nourishes the tumour, and administer high doses
of sodium bicarbonate to the deepest recesses of the tumour

In the past, for example, when I had the opportunity to treat a brain
tumour, although I was able to improve the condition of the patient,
I could not treat the tumorous mass at a deep enough level. I have countless
times wasted my breath begging neurologists and neurosurgeons to perform
the operation of inserting the catheter so that I could use it to do
a further local treatment.

Today, with selective arteriography of carotids, it is possible to reach
any cerebral mass without surgical intervention and in a completely painless
manner. By the same token, almost all organs can be treated and can benefit
from bicarbonate salts therapy, which is harmless, fast and effective – with
only the exception of some bone areas such as vertebrae and ribs, where
the scarce arterial irrigation does not allow sufficient dosage to reach
the targets.

Selective arteriography therefore represents a very powerful weapon
against fungus that can always be used against tumours, firstly because
it is painless and provokes no side effects, and secondly because the
risks are very low.

Technically, it is performed as follows: after sterilising and anaesthetising
the surface levels, a needle is introduced into the artery that is to
be used as an inlet port (usually the sub-clavian); then a metal guide
that is visible to the angiologist is inserted and can be used to locate
the selected artery. The last step consists of getting the small catheter
to administer the solution where necessary. Then the catheter is fitted
to a subcutaneous port-a-cath that stays in the selected location as
long as necessary.

This very low-risk intervention creates no more pain than an intravenous
injection and allows patients to be treated at home, although under constant
medical supervision.

Tullio Simoncini's website: www.curenaturalicancro.org

Posted by "Art does not reproduce the visible; rather, it makes
visible." Paul Klee 1879-1940. at 10:53 AM

3 comments:
Ruth said...
well done, Dr. Simoncini!! I applause your courage and work. One day,
hopefully soon, the truth will come to light. One day soon, the 'Medical
Mafia' will have to surrender to the wonders of alternative medicine!
Well done, and please, don't stop your most needed work.